For me it is always a good day when I learn something new. And today, I learned something new.
I just spent the afternoon with a high-school friend….. My best friend in those days. As happens a lot in real life, we had lost contact with each other over the years. It had been 30 years since we’ve seen or talked to each other. So I learned a lot today…. About my friend and her life over the past 3 decades. It was an absolutely delightful afternoon.
And I re-learned something else. Each executive’s network should be made up of both old and new friends, colleagues, etc. Yeah, I already knew that. Heck, I’ve talked about that more than once in this blog. And one of the key executive skills from my model is all about building your network (1-4-10 Let's Talk).
But “knowing” something and actually implementing the knowledge are two completely different things. I realized today that I “knew” how important the network was in my life, but I hadn’t actually taken an active role in maintaining the relationships that should be an important part of my network.
I also realized that it is important for each executive’s network to be made up of a variety of people, with a variety of backgrounds. It doesn’t have to include just your work relationships. Your network should have people from all the aspects of your life --- work, church, volunteer activities, college, and yes, even high school. There is so much to learn from all of the people that touch your life. And when you let both old and new relationships go stale, you miss out on so much.
The beauty of a network is that you can always renew and reinforce the relationships, no matter how much time has passed. Sure the relationships might have changed/evolved, but they are still there for your learning and enjoyment.
So, take some time and check your network. Is it balanced? With all types of people and all types of backgrounds? Have you told the people in your network how important they are to you? I guess it comes down to…… did you make an effort to nurture the relationships?
Cheers!
Friday, June 25, 2010
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
6-23-10 Don't Dis Your Boss in Public
I don’t think General McChrystal is a dummy. Hell, anyone that can advance to a four-star general has to be a pretty smart person. But I do have to wonder what he was thinking…….
In the past I’ve written about how there comes a time when you have to quit arguing, salute smartly, and follow the company line (2-1-10 Salute Smartly). But this whole incident with General McChrystal goes even beyond that.
If you haven’t been watching the news lately, General McChrystal (who heads/headed our war operations in Afghanistan), gave an interview to the Rolling Stone where he and his staff apparently dissed the President, the Vice President, and various diplomatic wonks in country. On a side note, I’ve read the article and frankly, I didn’t think it was that inflammatory. However, our press, and subsequently the President, apparently did because the General got relieved of command today.
Public disagreements or public dismissals of others’ ideas are never a good idea -- whether you are looking up the chain of command or down the chain of command.
When you are looking up the chain of command and you publicly dis your boss, like the General supposedly did, you run the serious risk of losing your job. Even if you retain your job, you will likely lose the confidence of your boss. And really, how can you be effective if you don’t have the support and backing of your boss? You will also likely jeopardize any future opportunities that might have come your way. Why would other potential bosses want you on their team when you clearly ignore the chain of command or when you publicly air your concerns or negative thoughts?
When you are looking down the chain of command and you publicly dis your peers or subordinates, you damage the credibility of everyone involved. You damage your credibility because, after all, YOU were the one that hired the person that you just publicly dressed down. What does that say about your common sense and abilities? And you damage the credibility of the person that you dissed, because if you don’t take them seriously, why should anyone else? And because of that, they become unable to effectively do their job. So you’ve essentially jeopardized your organization’s ability to accomplish its mission.
So the moral of the story here is….. Keep your negative opinions to yourself. In this day where there is immediate transmission of news, emails, IMs, and pictures/audios, you just never know where or how far what you are saying will go. And if you just can’t keep your opinions to yourself, then take them to the person that will be most hurt by the public flogging. Have the nerve to tell that person what you think. And if it is your boss, then be prepared to salute smartly and do what he/she says anyway.
Cheers!
In the past I’ve written about how there comes a time when you have to quit arguing, salute smartly, and follow the company line (2-1-10 Salute Smartly). But this whole incident with General McChrystal goes even beyond that.
If you haven’t been watching the news lately, General McChrystal (who heads/headed our war operations in Afghanistan), gave an interview to the Rolling Stone where he and his staff apparently dissed the President, the Vice President, and various diplomatic wonks in country. On a side note, I’ve read the article and frankly, I didn’t think it was that inflammatory. However, our press, and subsequently the President, apparently did because the General got relieved of command today.
Public disagreements or public dismissals of others’ ideas are never a good idea -- whether you are looking up the chain of command or down the chain of command.
When you are looking up the chain of command and you publicly dis your boss, like the General supposedly did, you run the serious risk of losing your job. Even if you retain your job, you will likely lose the confidence of your boss. And really, how can you be effective if you don’t have the support and backing of your boss? You will also likely jeopardize any future opportunities that might have come your way. Why would other potential bosses want you on their team when you clearly ignore the chain of command or when you publicly air your concerns or negative thoughts?
When you are looking down the chain of command and you publicly dis your peers or subordinates, you damage the credibility of everyone involved. You damage your credibility because, after all, YOU were the one that hired the person that you just publicly dressed down. What does that say about your common sense and abilities? And you damage the credibility of the person that you dissed, because if you don’t take them seriously, why should anyone else? And because of that, they become unable to effectively do their job. So you’ve essentially jeopardized your organization’s ability to accomplish its mission.
So the moral of the story here is….. Keep your negative opinions to yourself. In this day where there is immediate transmission of news, emails, IMs, and pictures/audios, you just never know where or how far what you are saying will go. And if you just can’t keep your opinions to yourself, then take them to the person that will be most hurt by the public flogging. Have the nerve to tell that person what you think. And if it is your boss, then be prepared to salute smartly and do what he/she says anyway.
Cheers!
Monday, June 21, 2010
6-21-10 The Care and Feeding of Landscapes and People
To celebrate the first day of summer, I designated today as landscape maintenance day. Woo hoo. It is 95 degrees here in the Midwest today (and humid!) --- so we get our yard work out of the way early in the day this time of year.
As I was mowing, it occurred to me how ironic the whole landscape-keeping cycle is. I mean, think about it. We nurture the lawn…. We seed, we plant, we feed, we water. And then? We cut it all off so that we can start the cycle over again. It just seems ironic to me that we work so hard to nurture the lawn, only to whack it short. And we do the same darned thing for the flower garden, the vegetable garden, and the shrubs/trees. The only thing in the landscape that is exempt from the whole process is the rock garden.
However, despite the irony of the whole process, there is something satisfying in watching your landscape prosper throughout the cycle of maintenance.
I would suggest that the same cycle is used in the care and feeding of people. Some might not like the metaphor, but in my mind, it fits. As an executive, one of the primary responsibilities is the “maintenance” of the people in the organization. We nurture. We coach. On occasion, we hand-hold. We teach. We demonstrate. We give feedback. We cheer on. We reward. Frankly, this is one of the most rewarding parts of the executive’s job.
And periodically, we have to rein our people in. It is our responsibility to protect our people from getting so far out on a limb that it bends beyond recognition --- or snaps. But if we are good at our executive job, we never, ever make the “clipping” process painful or personal. It isn’t easy for any executive to do this, but like lawn maintenance, it must be done.
And like the landscape maintenance process, there is a great deal of satisfaction when you see your people learn and grow and prosper.
Cheers!
As I was mowing, it occurred to me how ironic the whole landscape-keeping cycle is. I mean, think about it. We nurture the lawn…. We seed, we plant, we feed, we water. And then? We cut it all off so that we can start the cycle over again. It just seems ironic to me that we work so hard to nurture the lawn, only to whack it short. And we do the same darned thing for the flower garden, the vegetable garden, and the shrubs/trees. The only thing in the landscape that is exempt from the whole process is the rock garden.
However, despite the irony of the whole process, there is something satisfying in watching your landscape prosper throughout the cycle of maintenance.
I would suggest that the same cycle is used in the care and feeding of people. Some might not like the metaphor, but in my mind, it fits. As an executive, one of the primary responsibilities is the “maintenance” of the people in the organization. We nurture. We coach. On occasion, we hand-hold. We teach. We demonstrate. We give feedback. We cheer on. We reward. Frankly, this is one of the most rewarding parts of the executive’s job.
And periodically, we have to rein our people in. It is our responsibility to protect our people from getting so far out on a limb that it bends beyond recognition --- or snaps. But if we are good at our executive job, we never, ever make the “clipping” process painful or personal. It isn’t easy for any executive to do this, but like lawn maintenance, it must be done.
And like the landscape maintenance process, there is a great deal of satisfaction when you see your people learn and grow and prosper.
Cheers!
Friday, June 18, 2010
6-18-10 Expectations
The US Open started yesterday. And with almost 2 rounds complete, the leader is at 2 under par. While I know that Pebble Beach Golf Course is a difficult course, my expectations were that the pros would come out shooting very low scores. Why? Because like many sports fans, my expectations are based on past performance. Last week, at the St. Jude Classic, the winner was 10 under par. And the week before, at Jack’s Memorial Tournament, the winner was 18 under par. Of course, I didn’t take into account the course, the conditions, the competition, or the players. But those were my expectations.
The same expectations exist for the new and/or aspiring executive -- whether we like it or not. I’ve mentioned in the past that the executive is usually promoted to the exec ranks because of his/her past performance. The expectation is that the outstanding performance that got you this far will continue. And that expectation is without regard to the conditions of your previous jobs.
Is that realistic? I guess that depends on your situation. If you are promoted to an area where you are familiar with the people and the processes -- in that they are similar to what you have done in the past, then yes, it is realistic. Because the skills that got you this far will be the same skills that can carry you forward. However, the caveat here is that you can’t blindly follow the same path that you’ve used in the past. You are an executive now. You have other resources available to you -- and you are expected to learn how to use them.
However, if you are promoted to an unfamiliar area, then past performance may not be the best indicator of how you will do in the new job. Sure, some of your skills will be translatable. However, many will not. It is up to you to decide which will work.
One final word. It is also up to you to manage expectations. Huh? Yes, within reason, you CAN manage the expectations of your boss, your peers, and your staff. Obviously, don’t over-promise. But perhaps it isn’t quite so obvious that you shouldn’t under-promise. Figure out what you can deliver to the position, and how you will deliver it --- then make sure that they know your plan.
Cheers!
The same expectations exist for the new and/or aspiring executive -- whether we like it or not. I’ve mentioned in the past that the executive is usually promoted to the exec ranks because of his/her past performance. The expectation is that the outstanding performance that got you this far will continue. And that expectation is without regard to the conditions of your previous jobs.
Is that realistic? I guess that depends on your situation. If you are promoted to an area where you are familiar with the people and the processes -- in that they are similar to what you have done in the past, then yes, it is realistic. Because the skills that got you this far will be the same skills that can carry you forward. However, the caveat here is that you can’t blindly follow the same path that you’ve used in the past. You are an executive now. You have other resources available to you -- and you are expected to learn how to use them.
However, if you are promoted to an unfamiliar area, then past performance may not be the best indicator of how you will do in the new job. Sure, some of your skills will be translatable. However, many will not. It is up to you to decide which will work.
One final word. It is also up to you to manage expectations. Huh? Yes, within reason, you CAN manage the expectations of your boss, your peers, and your staff. Obviously, don’t over-promise. But perhaps it isn’t quite so obvious that you shouldn’t under-promise. Figure out what you can deliver to the position, and how you will deliver it --- then make sure that they know your plan.
Cheers!
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
6-16-10 English is a Tough Language
Today the Chairman and CEO of BP visited Washington DC. In an attempt to apologize publicly for the oil mess, they had yet another publicity gaffe.
The Chairman, Carl-Henric Svanberg said, "I hear comments sometimes that large oil companies are greedy companies or don't care, but that is not the case with BP. We care about the small people." Good grief.
Clearly, Mr. Svanberg has English as a second language. I heard one report that he is Swedish. Perhaps I am naïve, but I tend to believe that the gaffe is more a result of his use of the English language -- and not an incredible insensitivity on his part.
There are several lessons for the new executive in this -- but I will point out just two.
First, if you are working with a co-worker, client/customer, supplier, etc. whose first language is not English, remember to allow for the benefit of the doubt. What gets translated in their brain and comes out of their mouth, often does not fit with our social norms or may not even be politically correct. Don’t automatically assume that it is an insult. They may not realize the impact of what they have said.
Second, if you are an executive whose first language isn’t English, you need to spend probably more time that you would like on assuring understanding of your English. Don’t assume that your interpretation is the one that your English-speaking colleagues will understand. Yes, the burden is on you for this. Not fair, but realistic. Practice your delivery, understand the idioms, and take the time to assure yourself that what you wanted to say actually came across to your colleagues.
And overall? The lesson for native and non-native English speakers is that our language is a difficult language. Give people the benefit of the doubt. Don’t be offended. Strive, instead, for understanding.
Cheers!
The Chairman, Carl-Henric Svanberg said, "I hear comments sometimes that large oil companies are greedy companies or don't care, but that is not the case with BP. We care about the small people." Good grief.
Clearly, Mr. Svanberg has English as a second language. I heard one report that he is Swedish. Perhaps I am naïve, but I tend to believe that the gaffe is more a result of his use of the English language -- and not an incredible insensitivity on his part.
There are several lessons for the new executive in this -- but I will point out just two.
First, if you are working with a co-worker, client/customer, supplier, etc. whose first language is not English, remember to allow for the benefit of the doubt. What gets translated in their brain and comes out of their mouth, often does not fit with our social norms or may not even be politically correct. Don’t automatically assume that it is an insult. They may not realize the impact of what they have said.
Second, if you are an executive whose first language isn’t English, you need to spend probably more time that you would like on assuring understanding of your English. Don’t assume that your interpretation is the one that your English-speaking colleagues will understand. Yes, the burden is on you for this. Not fair, but realistic. Practice your delivery, understand the idioms, and take the time to assure yourself that what you wanted to say actually came across to your colleagues.
And overall? The lesson for native and non-native English speakers is that our language is a difficult language. Give people the benefit of the doubt. Don’t be offended. Strive, instead, for understanding.
Cheers!
Monday, June 14, 2010
6-14-10 What is Your Budget?
Every executive has a budget. And every executive knows exactly where he/she stands on spending the budget. No matter what level of executive you are, you will have budget constraints. Which leads me to one of the comments made by my survey participants. Remember I asked each participant what one thing that they wished they had known when they became an executive.
We know from the execution function of the executive skills and traits model that financial acumen is an important skill for the new and/or aspiring executive (1-13-10 Execution Skills -- Now go DO something!). This comment is an interesting twist on that financial acumen skill.
One particular executive said, “I discovered there was a tremendous amount of money needlessly tied up in reserve accounts and a lot of energy wasted hiding/holding on to those reserves”.
Okay, quit shaking your head. We all do it. Somewhere, buried deep in your budget is a slush fund. You “grew up” learning that reserves were required. If you didn’t have some extra funds in your back pocket, how could you possibly survive and pay for any unk-unks? Or how would you fund any unexpected opportunities?
So now you are asking… “are we all wrong? Should we not have reserves?” Well, yes and no. Unfortunately, there isn’t a straight answer on this one.
When is it appropriate? Perhaps when times are good because then the impact of reserves isn’t felt too keenly. Or perhaps when you are introducing a new product, when you can’t possibly have identified all of the problems and hitches that you will encounter. Or, as irritating as it is, when you know that your following year’s budget will be dependent on this year’s budget, including reserves.
You can tell that my survey participant didn’t think reserves were such a good idea. And there are times when he is right. How much time do you spend concealing or defending your reserves? Is it really worth the time and effort you put into it? I’ve seen some executives spend more man-hours defending a slush fund than the fund was actually worth. I just wanted to tell him that he wasn’t being very smart in choosing his battle.
Or have you checked into the overall financial health of the company lately? If your company is one of the companies that is laying off, I would suggest that you pony up your reserve immediately. There isn’t any reserve that compares to saving jobs. Or if your company is borrowing heavily just to stay afloat, then again, cough up the reserves.
Be smart about your slush fund and you won’t damage your company or your ability to survive and prosper.
Cheers!
We know from the execution function of the executive skills and traits model that financial acumen is an important skill for the new and/or aspiring executive (1-13-10 Execution Skills -- Now go DO something!). This comment is an interesting twist on that financial acumen skill.
One particular executive said, “I discovered there was a tremendous amount of money needlessly tied up in reserve accounts and a lot of energy wasted hiding/holding on to those reserves”.
Okay, quit shaking your head. We all do it. Somewhere, buried deep in your budget is a slush fund. You “grew up” learning that reserves were required. If you didn’t have some extra funds in your back pocket, how could you possibly survive and pay for any unk-unks? Or how would you fund any unexpected opportunities?
So now you are asking… “are we all wrong? Should we not have reserves?” Well, yes and no. Unfortunately, there isn’t a straight answer on this one.
When is it appropriate? Perhaps when times are good because then the impact of reserves isn’t felt too keenly. Or perhaps when you are introducing a new product, when you can’t possibly have identified all of the problems and hitches that you will encounter. Or, as irritating as it is, when you know that your following year’s budget will be dependent on this year’s budget, including reserves.
You can tell that my survey participant didn’t think reserves were such a good idea. And there are times when he is right. How much time do you spend concealing or defending your reserves? Is it really worth the time and effort you put into it? I’ve seen some executives spend more man-hours defending a slush fund than the fund was actually worth. I just wanted to tell him that he wasn’t being very smart in choosing his battle.
Or have you checked into the overall financial health of the company lately? If your company is one of the companies that is laying off, I would suggest that you pony up your reserve immediately. There isn’t any reserve that compares to saving jobs. Or if your company is borrowing heavily just to stay afloat, then again, cough up the reserves.
Be smart about your slush fund and you won’t damage your company or your ability to survive and prosper.
Cheers!
Friday, June 11, 2010
6-11-10 An Oily BP Mess
I suspect that you might have noticed that I have not written anything about the ongoing oil spill in the Gulf. Why? Perhaps because every time I watch the stories about the results of the blowout, I am just heartsick by the damage that it is doing to the Gulf. And, like most normal mortals, I’ve been practicing my finely honed head-in-the-sand routine. I can’t fix it, so I ignore it. Not a good management skill, but one that we all have (and, on occasion, use).
So now that I’ve sufficiently prodded myself, I do have a few things to say about the disaster -- at least in a larger context.
In the past, I’ve talked about disaster preparedness (3-29-10 Tornado! and 3-1-10 Earthquakes and Such), risk tolerance (4-14-10 What's Your Tolerance Level?), and safety (2-26-10 Are Safety and Growth Mutually Exclusive?). But today, I thought that I would approach it from a different perspective.
Someone asked me an interesting question once --- one that I believe applies here. “Are you so busy eliminating risk that you forgot to manage it?” As you might imagine, in the aerospace industry we take the elimination of risk seriously. Each of us in the industry takes it personally when a plane falls out of the sky -- whether or not it was one that we built. We are a risk adverse lot and go to great lengths to eliminate it. So what is the fundamental flaw in this? The original question answers that. Huh?
Well, the sad truth is that, no matter the industry, we can’t eliminate all risk. It would be like wrapping your kid in bubble wrap, all kinds of protective sports pads, a helmet, hockey gloves, racquetball goggles, shin guards, etc. and then sending him/her out to play in a war zone. You didn’t eliminate the risk. You can’t stop the war. But you could manage the risk by keeping your child at home. Okay, not the best analogy for the parents out there, but you get my point.
I am naïve or trusting enough to believe that BP spent so much time trying the eliminate the risk associated with deep water drilling that they forgot to manage it. Why? Because part of managing risk is putting contingency plans in place. Given the response by BP (and the government), I don’t see any evidence of contingency plans. Seems to me that all involved are making recovery plans up on the fly. Now don’t get me wrong, the ability to operate on the fly is also important. But it is a helluva lot easier to do when you at least have some rudimentary backup or “what if” plans in place.
As an executive, you are right to want to eliminate risk. But at some point, you will have to acknowledge that you cannot eliminate all the risk. You have to stop and define the remaining risk and then you absolutely must put plans in place. Call them contingeny plans, what if plans, risk management plans -- call them what you want. Just make sure that you have the ability to manage risk.
Cheers!
So now that I’ve sufficiently prodded myself, I do have a few things to say about the disaster -- at least in a larger context.
In the past, I’ve talked about disaster preparedness (3-29-10 Tornado! and 3-1-10 Earthquakes and Such), risk tolerance (4-14-10 What's Your Tolerance Level?), and safety (2-26-10 Are Safety and Growth Mutually Exclusive?). But today, I thought that I would approach it from a different perspective.
Someone asked me an interesting question once --- one that I believe applies here. “Are you so busy eliminating risk that you forgot to manage it?” As you might imagine, in the aerospace industry we take the elimination of risk seriously. Each of us in the industry takes it personally when a plane falls out of the sky -- whether or not it was one that we built. We are a risk adverse lot and go to great lengths to eliminate it. So what is the fundamental flaw in this? The original question answers that. Huh?
Well, the sad truth is that, no matter the industry, we can’t eliminate all risk. It would be like wrapping your kid in bubble wrap, all kinds of protective sports pads, a helmet, hockey gloves, racquetball goggles, shin guards, etc. and then sending him/her out to play in a war zone. You didn’t eliminate the risk. You can’t stop the war. But you could manage the risk by keeping your child at home. Okay, not the best analogy for the parents out there, but you get my point.
I am naïve or trusting enough to believe that BP spent so much time trying the eliminate the risk associated with deep water drilling that they forgot to manage it. Why? Because part of managing risk is putting contingency plans in place. Given the response by BP (and the government), I don’t see any evidence of contingency plans. Seems to me that all involved are making recovery plans up on the fly. Now don’t get me wrong, the ability to operate on the fly is also important. But it is a helluva lot easier to do when you at least have some rudimentary backup or “what if” plans in place.
As an executive, you are right to want to eliminate risk. But at some point, you will have to acknowledge that you cannot eliminate all the risk. You have to stop and define the remaining risk and then you absolutely must put plans in place. Call them contingeny plans, what if plans, risk management plans -- call them what you want. Just make sure that you have the ability to manage risk.
Cheers!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
